It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
spy66
SisyphusRide
if we go along with the big bang, then to laymen like me it would seem that...
the big bang already happened, this explosion has a finite size based in the mass contained, and that the galaxies are a result of the condensation of said ejected mass.
so the universe is finite
You do know from what you say above that there never could have been a BANG right?
You do seam to know that the singularity was very hot since you mention condensation.
Just that should tell you something very important about the space surrounding the singularity and why the singularity can expand outwards in volume.edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
SisyphusRide
spy66
reply to post by SisyphusRide
then this is speculation no? the current incarnation has been expanding 13+BY, but if we will never ever see the end, then how can we measure anything but our observable distance.
Yes, the true age of our universe is nothing but a calculated speculation. Our scientists can not measure more than what their techonlogy will let them. That is common sense.
But some people will confuse the accuracy of the age with what has been measured. Remember they have only measured the acurate age out to 13+.
That is why you have to read scientific data very carefully to pic these things up.
so "we see" the universe as 13 billion years old...
it's very different than saying the universe "is" 13 billion years old...
how can science be so misleading? is it on purpose to generate interest...?edit on 20-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)
spy66
SisyphusRide
spy66
reply to post by SisyphusRide
then this is speculation no? the current incarnation has been expanding 13+BY, but if we will never ever see the end, then how can we measure anything but our observable distance.
Yes, the true age of our universe is nothing but a calculated speculation. Our scientists can not measure more than what their techonlogy will let them. That is common sense.
But some people will confuse the accuracy of the age with what has been measured. Remember they have only measured the acurate age out to 13+.
That is why you have to read scientific data very carefully to pic these things up.
so "we see" the universe as 13 billion years old...
it's very different than saying the universe "is" 13 billion years old...
how can science be so misleading? is it on purpose to generate interest...?edit on 20-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)
Scientific data have to pass through different chanels before they are published.
There are also many different authors who publish their version to the public as well. Why formulate the information the way they do. I have no answer to that.
But all you have to do is look up the equipent that was used and read the spec. From that you can figure out what was really measured, and compare it to the information published.
the complexity and precision are proof of intelligent design...
as we understand intelligence
Let me ask; Poor design you say. To who's standard?
The way we live is not even natural. We live in a human designed world. Are we designed to fit into our own designed world?
Or are we designed to live differently?
To any being with intelligence.
The larynx and esaphagus is a design flaw.
Actually, if we are natural parts of the Earth, then the way we live would be natural.
If a human builds a skyscraper we say it's "man-made."
If a beaver builds a damn we say it's "beaver-made." Well, actually, we don't say that. If a beaver builds a damn, we don't see the damn as "artifical." The damn is part of nature.
Likewise, our skyscrapers are not artificial. They are part of nature. They may be a cancer, but they are still natural. just like the beaver damn.
LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by edmc^2
One thing is not proof of another thing.
A is not proof of B.
A tree is not proof of unicorns.
The universe is not proof of God.
An actual God would be proof of (a) God.
Some footprints found in mud would only be evidence.
And, seeing that intelligence can redraft a design and improve it, why haven't our bodies been improved? God could remove the appendix, and disconnect the larynx and esophagus from one another. The eliminative organs could be eliminated if our bodies created their own energy instead of being reliant on our surroundings. Our teeth could auto-kill bad bacteria thereby doing away with the need for dental care.
AfterInfinity
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
You do realize it's "dam", not "damn", right? One's a beaver-made structure, the other is a curse word. Learn the difference.
LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by SisyphusRide
the complexity and precision are proof of intelligent design...
as we understand intelligence
Well, we know that intellgince makes mistakes in design.
Take for instance a bridge.
I am sure that builders have made mistakes in their designs of bridges before. What makes intelligence intelligent, is the fact that, a sentient creature can tell when a design flaw has been made.
In that way, our mistakes are proof of our intelligence, because we are in a constant state of learning from them and making our designs better.
As for as all of creation, we seem to have been stuck together in a very helter skelter fashion if we are the product of intelligent design.
Like our esophagus and larynx. Choking on food and dying because of it is a sign of a bad design. The larynx and esophagus should not be connected the way they are. A good designer would realize that mistake and correct it. We have yet to be corrected.
Or what about the appendix? An organ that may have served a function at some point in our past but no longer does, and could potentially rupture and kill us.
What if an architect designed a home with a murder hole within in a room in the house? We don't use murder holes anymore, so the room would serve no function. What if he put a bomb in the murder hole, and you have no clue as to whether or not the bomb will go off? And the only way to remove the bomb is by tearing through the foundation of the home?
The entire concept would be an example of poor design.
There are many examples throughout nature of poor design.
The connection of the larynx and esaphagus is a bad design.
The fact that you have to brush your teeth to stop them from rotting out of your head is a bad design.
An entity that is incapable of intrinsically providing its own energy, instead of being reliant on it's outer environment for food, is a bad design.
Connecting the eliminative and sexual organs as one is a bad design.
And, seeing that intelligence can redraft a design and improve it, why haven't our bodies been improved? God could remove the appendix, and disconnect the larynx and esophagus from one another. The eliminative organs could be eliminated if our bodies created their own energy instead of being reliant on our surroundings. Our teeth could auto-kill bad bacteria thereby doing away with the need for dental care.
But, here we are with all of those things still intact.
Honestly, there are so many glaring errors in our "design" I can't fathom how anyone would think we were created by anything intelligent.edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)
spy66
Scientific data have to pass through different chanels before they are published.
There are also many different authors who publish their version to the public as well. Why formulate the information the way they do. I have no answer to that.
But all you have to do is look up the equipent that was used and read the spec. From that you can figure out what was really measured, and compare it to the information published.
Sorry but your math nor your logic doesn't compute.
So if "The universe is not proof of God" then what is the universe proof of then?
Remember your own logic: A is not proof of B.
And, seeing that intelligence can redraft a design and improve it, why haven't our bodies been improved? God could remove the appendix, and disconnect the larynx and esophagus from one another. The eliminative organs could be eliminated if our bodies created their own energy instead of being reliant on our surroundings. Our teeth could auto-kill bad bacteria thereby doing away with the need for dental care.
It has no bearing on the existence of God just as an explosion of a house has no bearing on the question of whether E = mc2.
In addition, how can you confidently conclude that a design is bad just because of an accident or misused?
Using your own logic, what you're basically saying is that, if a person swallows a chunk of food too soon and too fast and starts choking, it means that his esophagus was a bad design. Correct?
If so, what kind of logic is that?
Furthermore, there's almost 8 billion people in the world, if the esophagus was a bad design, should we all be chocking to death by now?
Furthermore, how did you know that the esophagus was in the wrong place without knowing the full functionality of every organ and system of the entire human body?
Haven't it occurred to you that its location is just right with respect to the rest of the body?
For instance, many thought that the appendix was a useless organ. But come to find out, its very presence is important to the immune system.
But really, it's the height of arrogance to say that the human body is a "bad design" while possessing a very very limited knowledge about it.
It's like a first grader criticizing that a Stingray Corvette is a "bad design" just because he sees something not quite right based on his current experience and understanding.
But in the end your post goes back to this:
Does the imperfection, badness, wickedness, misery, sickness, death, we see all around us are proof enough that God doesn't exist?
If you say yes, then we face a very very bleak future for right in front of us is the power to annihilate life - nuclear weapons of unimaginable power when unleashed.
On the other hand if you say no, then why are these "things" happening?
Is there any valid reason why these things are happening and most of all, who is responsible?
If God - do you mean to say that he exist? If so, does he have the Power and Intelligence to stop all of the madness? After all what are these in comparison to the Awesome Universe, let alone infinity?
Will the creator of the Universe have the wisdom to restore EVERYTHING into what it was - perfection?
Your conclusion to this matter will have a bearing on how you view life and your future.
LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by edmc^2
Sorry but your math nor your logic doesn't compute.
So if "The universe is not proof of God" then what is the universe proof of then?
Remember your own logic: A is not proof of B.
The universe is proof of the existence of the universe.
If a thing exists, it has mass and occupies space. It's existence can be verified, either by it's physical presence (we have a live specimen), or by the collection of the evidence of it's affect on an environment (we found fossils, or footprints in mud, we can measure and accurately predict various attributes of the thing in question).
Saying "we exist, therefore, God exists" is poor logic.
A is not proof of the existence of B.
A is proof of the existence of A.
And, seeing that intelligence can redraft a design and improve it, why haven't our bodies been improved? God could remove the appendix, and disconnect the larynx and esophagus from one another. The eliminative organs could be eliminated if our bodies created their own energy instead of being reliant on our surroundings. Our teeth could auto-kill bad bacteria thereby doing away with the need for dental care.
It has no bearing on the existence of God just as an explosion of a house has no bearing on the question of whether E = mc2.
I wasn't refuting the existence of God with that bit. I meant the fallacy of "intelligent design."
In addition, how can you confidently conclude that a design is bad just because of an accident or misused?
The larynx and esophagus are connected. When you swallow food, if you do not synchronize the timing of your breathing with the timing of the action of swallowing...you will choke. If you block the airway long enough you can suffer brain damage, or worse, death.
I am a programmer, so I'll use a computer analogy. Let's say I write a program that receives inputs from two separate sources--a scanner and a database server. So data is flowing from two separate channels that will merge into one channel, and then that leads to the software application.
If that is the case, you have to synchronize when to grab data from the server, and when to grab data from the scanner. If your timing is off, the data collides and the collision kills the application. That could be bad, because maybe you forgot to save your work.
So, a better design would be to leave the two channels separate. That way, the data travels two separate paths and there is no fear of a collision because a collision can't happen. It can't because it was designed not to. THAT, is a far better design than leaving the question of a collision up to chance.
People do not choke because of misuse of the human system. They choke purely by accident from lack of correct timing between swallowing and breathing correctly, because of the connection between the larynx and the esophagus. A better design would be to leave the larynx and esophagus disconnected as two separate paths. I mean, they are tubes whose input leads to two separate subsystems. One input is going to the digestive system, the other input is going to the respiratory system--but, when you are eating, both start from the same channel (the mouth).
Using your own logic, what you're basically saying is that, if a person swallows a chunk of food too soon and too fast and starts choking, it means that his esophagus was a bad design. Correct?
No. That means that the connection between the esophagus and the larynx is a bad design. It simply does not need to be there. It serves no purpose and is dangerous.
If so, what kind of logic is that?
That's actually impeccable design logic.
Furthermore, there's almost 8 billion people in the world, if the esophagus was a bad design, should we all be chocking to death by now?
Uh, no.
The connection between the larynx and esophagus is the problem. The connection. It does not guarantee death, it just means that an accident can occur.
And choking is a pretty big accident.
Furthermore, how did you know that the esophagus was in the wrong place without knowing the full functionality of every organ and system of the entire human body?
We already know all of that. The esophagus carries food to the digestive organs. The larynx carries oxygen to the lungs and the rest of the respiratory system.
The esophagus is not in the wrong place, the problem is the connection to the larynx.
Haven't it occurred to you that its location is just right with respect to the rest of the body?
Once agian, the location is not the problem, it's the connection between two channels that should not be connected. I am not entirely sure where you are getting location? I never stated that location of the esophagus was the error.
For instance, many thought that the appendix was a useless organ. But come to find out, its very presence is important to the immune system.
They are still gathering evidence to figure out what the appendix does.
But really, it's the height of arrogance to say that the human body is a "bad design" while possessing a very very limited knowledge about it.
And, um, how did you deduce what my "limit" is?
The esophagus and larynx are connected, and that connection is the cause of choking. If they were not connected, there would be no choking.
So yeah, that's a design flaw. IF we are the product of "intelligent design."
If someone makes the claim that we are the product of intelligent design, and someone else points out the glaring design flaws that the human body possesses--how is that "arrogant?"
"It doesn't fit in with what I believe."
Yeah, that's pretty much it.edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)
When you swallow food, if you do not synchronize the timing of your breathing with the timing of the action of swallowing...you will choke.
The key is synchronization. If we can perfectly time this every time we swallow then there will be no chocking.
Fortunately, out of 8 billion (imperfect) people, chocking accidents are very small. Otherwise like I said - all of us will be chocking by now because of a "bad design".
Now if we only pay attention and make sure to obey mum to chew our food first before we swallow and not talk while eating/chewing, then we'll have no problem.
As for the larynx being connected to the esophagus - I'm glad that it's connected that way otherwise, no upbeat songs sung by the Beach Boys or your fav.
To each its own I guess.
LewsTherinThelamon
The universe is proof of the existence of the universe.
LewsTherinThelamon
It wasn't one of those "but, if God exists, why does bad stuff happen?!?!?"
LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by SisyphusRide
there is evidence of a Creator
I am not saying that there is no evidence.
If we found proof that big foot exists, that would mean that we found a living specimen.
So A is proof of A.
The universe is not proof of the existence of God.
An actual God would be proof of a God.
Whatever an actual God would be.